Additional charges don't serve justice in Durham

Oshawa This Week

The lawyer defending a teen living with a mental illness shot by police last year in the commission of a robbery at a Pickering animal hospital feels his client has been "sandbagged" by the Crown's office.

And who could blame him, or the family of the teen, who had already pleaded guilty to robbery and was awaiting sentencing when the Crown's office determined additional criminal charges were required?

Durham residents may recall the incident from last March. The teen was shot twice by police responding to the veterinary clinic after he pulled what appeared to be a gun when confronted. The teen pleaded guilty in October to robbery with an imitation firearm. Court heard that the youth, who has a history of mental health issues, was intent on committing suicide when he demanded 'euthanasia' drugs at the clinic.

Last week, prosecutors said the decision to lay new charges came after the Crown was given access to police reports that had first been submitted to the Special Investigations Unit, the agency charged with investigating police in cases where there is injury to civilians.

The youth now faces additional charges of using an imitation firearm during the commission of an offence, and assault with a weapon.

This is not a question of police acting inappropriately in the circumstance. Indeed, the SIU cleared the police officer who shot the teen in its investigation.

Instead, it raises questions about the carriage of justice. A guilty plea in the case had already been accepted by the Crown and the teen was awaiting sentencing -- with a focus on psychiatric care instead of a prison term -- when the new charges were laid.

To the Crown's credit, the prosecutor in the case says the additional charges still won't likely result in jail time for the teen. But the teen's lawyer, Selwyn Pieters, is right to question the timing and impact of additional charges at this time, given the fact that he worked closely with the Crown throughout to guide the case to a mutually agreeable determination.

Additional charges may satisfy the Crown, surely, but don't seem to serve justice in this case. The teen's illness has been fully documented and accepted by court officials and was to be concluded last week, allowing the teen to receive the treatment he requires.

To surprise the family and defence counsel with new charges when the case was on the brink of resolution seems counterproductive and contrary.